Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 06:02:02 PM by Happy Lutheran »

Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

I think people think most parables are more simple than what they are.

And Jesus said He wasn't using parables to get some message across but quite the opposite.

If I remember the animated Bible series correctly I once watched on youtube.

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

I think people think most parables are more simple than what they are.

And Jesus said He wasn't using parables to get some message across but quite the opposite.

If I remember the animated Bible series correctly I once watched on youtube.

I agree with the first point, I probably didn't state that right. To the second point I think he wanted people to think and its pretty clear there are messages in the parables he was trying to get across. He also wanted to seperate the true believers from those just interested in the crowds and not the message. Thanks

Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

How was the man on the cross next to Jesus saved, since he was not baptised, had communion or even worshipped?

Jesus used his executive privilege

PP

Also fair to mention that the man next to Jesus on the Cross did not 'just have faith' as some Protestants claim, but also demonstrated works by defending Jesus against the slander spoken by the other man. To us it may not seem like a lot, but in his circumstances, it was the very most he could do.

Yes, ButThe point of this thread ,I think, Is about how protestants are to be saved without receiving his body and blood through communion.I have always tried to respect others ways, especially those who pray to Jesus as their Savior Such as all Christians in general.

Jesus also said all thing are possible with God, and only one sin would not be forgiven, so I try not to judge other faiths as long as they do as the thief on the cross next to Jesus .

Who are we to tell the farmer what he should pay?

Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

Until now,no Protestant Christians can reconcile the victory of the Rescurrection of Christ with their false teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal substitution"

As we know, Jesus defeated the death through his death and His Resurrection. Happy Luther and David Young also agree with it .

However,according to Protestant 's teaching , death is the punisment of God after men sin. Then, through the "Resurrection of Christ", Christ did not only defeat the death, but also implies that He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.Indeed,it is absolutely nonsense.

By comparing it with the Orthodoxy, Orthodox Church teach that death is a natural consequence after men sin. God is life. Sin is the separation of God who is life .The more we sin ,the more we are far away from God who is life , the more we are close to death. Death is the natural consequence of men's sin. Sin is sickness to be healed , not a crime to be punished. And the Incarnation and Rescurration of Christ is to heal the wound men make, to heal what is really broken, and to cast out the death. This is much more sensiable.

Protestant 's teaching just contradict with each other. They believe that Death is the punishment of God and Jesus defeated the death through His Rescurrection. However, they cannot mention anything about the Resurrection of Christ when they preach the gospel. Because the Rescurrection of Christ just implied that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment(e.g. death) , and also implied that He is more powerful than God.

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

Until now,no Protestant Christians can reconcile the victory of the Rescurrection of Christ with their false teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal substitution"

As we know, Jesus defeated the death through his death and His Resurrection. Happy Luther and David Young also agree with it .

However,according to Protestant 's teaching , death is the punisment of God after men sin. Then, through the "Resurrection of Christ", Christ did not only defeat the death, but also implies that He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.Indeed,it is absolutely nonsense.

I think you're being too broad in your generalization. Saying that most Lutherans consider themselves Evangelical Catholics not Protestant.

Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong

Honest question, since Jesus had to tell his Apostles and Disciples parables to relay simple messages does anyone really think they have the only possible correct answer to such a question? We know through his death and Reserection Christ defeated death and sin for us but it doesn't seem to discuss some deep theological reasons us humans like to present it as.

Until now,no Protestant Christians can reconcile the victory of the Rescurrection of Christ with their false teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal substitution"

As we know, Jesus defeated the death through his death and His Resurrection. Happy Luther and David Young also agree with it .

However,according to Protestant 's teaching , death is the punisment of God after men sin. Then, through the "Resurrection of Christ", Christ did not only defeat the death, but also implies that He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.Indeed,it is absolutely nonsense.

I think you're being too broad in your generalization. Saying that most Lutherans consider themselves Evangelical Catholics not Protestant.

'Rescurrection of Christ' is one of the most important parts in the Gospel. If you totally ignore the Rescurrection of Christ.It is not sensible.You are also preaching an imcomplete and fragmentary gospel.

If you include the "Rescurrection of Christ" in the gospel,you imply that Jesus defeat God and God's punishment (e.g. death). You also imply that God and Jesus conflict with each other, and Jesus is more powerful than God.It must be nonsense again. You cannot reconcile 'Rescurrection with Christ' with the false teaching of Protestant's teaching of "Sin and Death" and "Penal Substitution".

No matter you include the Rescurrection of Christ in the Gospel that Protestant preaches or not, the Gospel is still nonsense.

He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.

I'm going to be honest. You're the only person that I can recall ever putting it in these words. I used to be Protestant. I have a Protestant friend who runs a local foodbank that I attend his bible studies every once in a while, sometimes when he has pastors fom other Protestant churches speak. I asked one of the other pastors that was speaking there this question once, and his response that it was simply a sign of his divinity and that he was the Messiah and to show us what we will be like in the general resurrection. I have never heard anyone else put the resurrection in terms of Jesus defeating God.

He defeated God and God's punishment.On the other word.Jesus is more powerful than God.

I'm going to be honest. You're the only person that I can recall ever putting it in these words. I used to be Protestant. I have a Protestant friend who runs a local foodbank that I attend his bible studies every once in a while, sometimes when he has pastors fom other Protestant churches speak. I asked one of the other pastors that was speaking there this question once, and his response that it was simply a sign of his divinity and that he was the Messiah and to show us what we will be like in the general resurrection. I have never heard anyone else put the resurrection in terms of Jesus defeating God.

This is one of the most common answer I heard from Protestant.Some Protestant Christians also say that The Rescurrction of Christ is just to show His glory. However,All these answers just imply that "Rescurrection of Christ" has nothing much to do with our salvation,as He can still save us and accomplish the salvation without His Rescurrection.

Moreover, One side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever. The other side of God who is Jesus tried to save them from Father's horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.

Moreover, One side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever. The other side of God who is Jesus tried to save them from Father's horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.

I was a Protestant for 25 years and never heard anything quite like what you share with us.

Moreover, One side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever. The other side of God who is Jesus tried to save them from Father's horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.

I was a Protestant for 25 years and never heard anything quite like what you share with us.

I could be wrong, but I think Walter here is suggesting what a sorta weird conclusions one might be able to draw from strands of Protestant theology.

I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

I would explain it like this: that the overall event of Christ's death and resurrection achieved more than one thing: it dealt with the problem of our guilt (penal substitution), and it also conquered death ("Christus victor"). These two achievements are not contradictory, and by dying and rising again he did them both.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 10:15:16 AM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

I would explain it like this: that the overall event of Christ's death and resurrection achieved more than one thing: it dealt with the problem of our guilt (penal substitution), and it also conquered death ("Christus victor"). These two achievements are not contradictory, and by dying and rising again he did them both.

The main problem is that Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of God rather than natural consequence after men sin. Then, through the Rescurrection of Christ,Jesus did not only defeat the death, but also imply that Jesus defeated God and God's punishment(e.g.death) .On the other word,Jesus is more powerful than God.Jesus defeated God/ the punishment of God through His Resurrection .Indeed, it is absolutely nonsense.

Moreover, in the penal substitution, one side of God who is Father wanted to punish all men and torture them forever.The other side of God who is Jesus tried to stop the Father and save men from His horrible punishment and torments. Jesus and Father just conflicted with each other.There is no unity within the Trinity as well.

The main problem is that Protestant teaches that death is the punishment of God rather than natural consequence after men sin.

Walter, are you really a cradle Orthodox trolling around as a recovering Protestant? Sometimes your analysis is so spot on, I think either (a) you have just been messing with us or (b) the Holy Spirit is truly more Mysterious than Rey Mysterio Jr

I am really very interested that how you can reconcile the victory of Christ 's Resurrection with Protestant's teaching of 'SIN and Death' and 'penal substitution'. Can you explain it to me?

I would explain it like this: that the overall event of Christ's death and resurrection achieved more than one thing: it dealt with the problem of our guilt (penal substitution), and it also conquered death ("Christus victor"). These two achievements are not contradictory, and by dying and rising again he did them both.

So again, do you read Penal Substitution into the 1 Peter chapter 2 verses which you quoted?

Also could you elaborate a bit further on the ontology of Penal Substitution? So is it mechanical? Like, God has a specified amount of wrath determined metrically by the the Law and Sin, and so Christ exhausts God's wrath in this mechanical sense? Or is it deeper? I am trying to wrap my head around this idea, but even from my Baptist background it feels foreign to me.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 03:23:10 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Also could you elaborate a bit further on the ontology of Penal Substitution? So is it mechanical?

Put it like this: justification is something God does for us;

Please forgive me but you're talking in circles. What is this does in verb sense? What is God doing exactly in the context of Substitution? Again, is God exhausting His own wrath in a very mechanical sense (i.e. God has a set amount of wrath determined by Law and He exercises this wrath against Jesus Christ in His Flesh)?

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Remitting the sinner's guilt and punishment, as Christ took the sinner's sin upon himself and died in our place. I can understand someone disagreeing with the doctrine, but I do not think it is hard to understand.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Remitting the sinner's guilt and punishment, as Christ took the sinner's sin upon himself and died in our place. I can understand someone disagreeing with the doctrine, but I do not think it is hard to understand.

How does God remit guilt and punishment? Again, through exhausting in a mechanical sense His own wrath on Jesus' body on the Cross? Is Jesus being literally punished on our behalf? See, let me explain our Orthodox approach so you can understand my confusion. In Orthodox ontology, God's punishment for sin is not necessarily direct or personal, it is almost mechanical. Sin distorts human nature, like a wound or injury to the spiritual body, and like all wounds, if left untreated can either bleed to death or get infected towards death. When Christ became Incarnate, He began the process of restoring Human Nature by Grace (mechanically so to speak).

Think of Sin as like a cancer, which has negatively impacts the spiritual DNA of human nature. Like all cancers and DNA damage, inevitably this leads to damage and death. By Grace, Jesus Christ like our cosmic immunoresponse, not only attacks the cancer growth (i.e. the actions of sin) but also the damage caused (i.e. restores the spiritual DNA to its original state of perfection). If a person smokes tobacco, they expose themselves to dangerous chemicals which damage the body and lead to pain, injury, and even death. When a person sins, they expose themselves to the same spiritual harm. When we are exposed to Grace, we are healed of these wounds. It isn't exactly an instant becoming, rather, like all matters of the body, a gradual process.

So on the Cross, Jesus Christ was not directly or personally bearing any one person's punishment for Sin (i.e. the wrath of God) rather was experiencing that same ontological reality which humans have experienced since sin and death marred our spiritual DNA (e.g. our human nature). God's wrath is not personal, it is mechanical. It is a natural consequence of what our sins accumulate as spiritual damage to our bodies (both physical and spiritual). Jesus Christ restores the damage, not necessarily by bearing God's punishment in our place, rather, but experiencing the natural consequence of sin (i.e. the punishment) so that by His Grace He sanctified death and suffering, so that we can now be restored by Grace. We are not dodging a rightfully due punishment, rather we are in a very real and eternal way healed. So there is no call for wrath or judgement in the first place! It'd be like needing chemotherapy for cancer after the body has already been healed.

So in our ontology, what God is doing in the mechanical sense is restoring human nature, not necessarily bearing our punishment so that we are not punished. We would still inevitably need to be punished as a natural consequence of the wounds of sin. Rather, God then restored and healed us of these wounds so that naturally speaking, there is no consequence because there is no longer any wounds to speak of.

In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people. Since we can't bear this punishment without being vindictively destroyed, God attacked Jesus Christ with this set amount of wrath and Jesus Christ being God Himself was able to bear the attack. Sort of like God being angry at the world and punching Himself in the face instead to vent His anger.. Is that a correct interpretation? If not, could you please elaborate further for me? I hope by explaining my position you can better understand exactly what I am questioning.

stay blessed,habte selassie

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

How does God remit guilt and punishment?... in a mechanical sense His own wrath on Jesus' body on the Cross?

I find the word 'mechanical' impossible to fit together with God's love and compassion. A reading of the closing sections of the Book of Hosea reveals more of the heart of God than perhaps any other passage in scripture, and leaves us in no doubt of the warm cordial love he has towards us. "Mechanical" just doesn't fit there at all.

Quote

Is Jesus being literally punished on our behalf?

I am happy to believe and preach that, but if you wish to withdraw the word "literally" and regard it as a way God uses to help us to grasp enough of what Christ wrought in order to redeem us, I shall not strive for a word. What matters most is to trust it, not to penetrate its divine workings between Father and Son.

Quote

God's punishment for sin is not necessarily direct or personal,... Think of Sin as like a cancer, which has negatively impacts the spiritual DNA of human nature.

Be all that as it may, once the individual sinner believes and trusts what happened, it becomes personal for him, and he can speak of "the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Quote

God's wrath is not personal,

It is hard to see how his love can be personal, but his wrath impersonal.

Quote

In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.

He has: the determined amount is death.

Quote

Since we can't bear this punishment without being vindictively destroyed, God attacked Jesus Christ with this set amount of wrath and Jesus Christ being God Himself was able to bear the attack.

That must be the oddest way I've ever come across of having it explained, and I would certainly remove the word "vindictive" in reference to God.

Quote

Sort of like God being angry at the world and punching Himself in the face instead to vent His anger.. Is that a correct interpretation?

No. I think you are here peering too deeply into the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 05:59:12 AM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

If I may interject, Protestants are of different minds. Consequently, we should qualify our assertions and understandings by referring to a particular denomination. And, even in some denominations, there are differences; just look at the Anglican Communion.

If I may interject, Protestants are of different minds. Consequently, we should qualify our assertions and understandings by referring to a particular denomination. And, even in some denominations, there are differences; just look at the Anglican Communion.

You can say that again.

Heck, David Young is a Baptist and he is a far cry from what I grew up with.

Although I don't find his explanations here very helpful or even carrying much meaning, I almost always find his posts quite illuminating and I wonder what life would've been like growing with a man like him as a Baptist minister.

And his brilliance is also part of the argument against Protestantism.

As much as we can argue here about Orthodoxy, it surely is quite more inline and less uneven than Protestantism, even if we confine ourselves to "Baptists".

If I may interject, Protestants are of different minds. Consequently, we should qualify our assertions and understandings by referring to a particular denomination. And, even in some denominations, there are differences; just look at the Anglican Communion.

Agreed, and a much needed reminder for many people, myself included at times.

In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.

He has: the determined amount is death.

No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount is 'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.

I don't think so. I come from Charismatic while David Young come from Baptism.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?Do Baptism teach its members how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit? Do Baptism teach 'slain in spirit' ? Do Baptism have the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic? Do Baptism teachi 'faith healing'?Do Baptism teach anything about the miracles( I know some baptism Church teaches that miralces has been creased after first generation)? Do baptism teach anything about lay hands on one another....

David Young ,Do you believe all these hell and heaven visitation testimony from Charistmatic and Pentecostal? According to these testimonies,the determined amount of wrath as a punishment is ' Be abandoned by God and to demons and tortured by demons'.

In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.

He has: the determined amount is death.

No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount is 'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.

I don't think so. I come from Charismatic while David Young come from Baptism.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?Do Baptism teach its members how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit? Do Baptism teach 'slain in spirit' ? Do Baptism have the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic? Do Baptism teachi 'faith healing'?Do Baptism teach anything about the miracles( I know some baptism Church teaches that miralces has been creased after first generation)? Do baptism teach anything about lay hands on one another....

David Young ,Do you believe all these hell and heaven visitation testimony from Charistmatic and Pentecostal? According to these testimonies,the determined amount of wrath as a punishment is ' Be abandoned by God and to demons and tortured by demons'.

But when you say, "That's not what Protestants teach," you assert that there's only one Protestant body of teaching, that ALL true Protestants teach as those in your charismatic, Pentecostal background teach. By saying, "That's not what Protestants teach," you say that what David teaches is not Protestant teaching because it's not Pentecostal. I know from my own experience that there's no one clear body of Protestant teaching, such that you can say, "That's not what Protestants teach."

In the ontology of Penal Substitution, it seems that God has a set and determined amount of wrath as a punishment in the vindictive or personal sense for sins committed by people.

He has: the determined amount is death.

No,this is not the teaching of Protestant . According to Protestant's teaching, the determine amount is 'Be hated, revenged,abandoned, insulted, rejected,tortured by God foreover'.

I think Rev. David knows a little bit more about what his religion teaches than you do.

I don't think so. I come from Charismatic while David Young come from Baptism.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?Do Baptism teach its members how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit? Do Baptism teach 'slain in spirit' ? Do Baptism have the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic? Do Baptism teachi 'faith healing'?Do Baptism teach anything about the miracles( I know some baptism Church teaches that miralces has been creased after first generation)? Do baptism teach anything about lay hands on one another....

David Young ,Do you believe all these hell and heaven visitation testimony from Charistmatic and Pentecostal? According to these testimonies,the determined amount of wrath as a punishment is ' Be abandoned by God and to demons and tortured by demons'.

But when you say, "That's not what Protestants teach," you assert that there's only one Protestant body of teaching, that ALL true Protestants teach as those in your charismatic, Pentecostal background teach. By saying, "That's not what Protestants teach," you say that what David teaches is not Protestant teaching because it's not Pentecostal. I know from my own experience that there's no one clear body of Protestant teaching, such that you can say, "That's not what Protestants teach."

You can say in this way. It is hardly to defind what Protestant really teaches. Because different denomination teach different things. Not just various denominations teach different things. Different protestant scholars also teach different things.

Many scholars in Protestant , like John piper , even develop his own theology,e.g. Christian Hedonism and his private interpretation of ' justification', which cannot be found in any Protestant denomination and Protestant History.

Not only John Jiper does this. I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.

Many Famous scholars in Protestant like to form his/ her new theologies and teaching which cannot be found in any Protestant denomination and Protestant History. They just interpret the scriptures privately and according to the way, will and approach they like.

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?... how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit?... 'slain in spirit' ? ... the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic?... 'faith healing'?... the miracles... lay hands on one another....... hell and heaven visitation testimony

To begin at the end, I am not clear what you mean by heaven and hell visitations. Do you mean what are sometimes called "near death experiences"? Or do you mean supernatural visions and experiences?

In re the others, you forget the nature of our Faith: there are non-negotiable essentials (including of course the three major creeds: though we seldom recite them, we believe what they contain); and there are matters on which we differ, which are not essential to being a Christian. These include speaking in tongues, divine healing, present-day miracles, the laying-on of hands.

We do not practise the laying-on of hands for receiving the Holy Spirit, though doubtless some do, but would not, I think, imagine it to be the only way a person can receive Him; some practise it for commission to a particular service (such as the ministry), some for healing (perhaps with the anointing of oil as in James). Most Baptists would not accept the Pentecostal second-blessing teaching regarding the Holy Spirit, though I think most if not all would accept that God does sometimes choose to fill a believer instantaneously and wonderfully with the Spirit: He deals differently with each of his children. Speaking in tongues is not often spoken about, though some Baptist churches have 'gone charismatic' and there it is more openly practised. Mostly I have little if any idea whether my fellow believers speak in tongues or not, as it would probably be kept to private devotions; it is not practised openly in church except among those who have accepted Charismatic teaching on this. Likewise, the concept of being 'slain in the Spirit' is alien to us, but as it happened at least as far back as the 1730s, I doubt many would categorically say it is never of the Lord. Finally, you ask about listening to or for the voice of the Spirit. This has always been an important element of personal piety in our circles, but there have arisen some extremists who take 'sola scriptura' so far that they say God never speaks to his children except through the written Word. This is not, as far as I know, a widespread stance - and behold! I am told it came over in the second half of the 20th century from America

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Do Baptism teach anything about 'speak in tongue'?... how to listen the voice of Holy Spirit?... 'slain in spirit' ? ... the same understand of '' baptised in Spirit' with Charismatic?... 'faith healing'?... the miracles... lay hands on one another....... hell and heaven visitation testimony

To begin at the end, I am not clear what you mean by heaven and hell visitations. Do you mean what are sometimes called "near death experiences"? Or do you mean supernatural visions and experiences?

In re the others, you forget the nature of our Faith: there are non-negotiable essentials (including of course the three major creeds: though we seldom recite them, we believe what they contain); and there are matters on which we differ, which are not essential to being a Christian. These include speaking in tongues, divine healing, present-day miracles, the laying-on of hands.

We do not practise the laying-on of hands for receiving the Holy Spirit, though doubtless some do, but would not, I think, imagine it to be the only way a person can receive Him; some practise it for commission to a particular service (such as the ministry), some for healing (perhaps with the anointing of oil as in James). Most Baptists would not accept the Pentecostal second-blessing teaching regarding the Holy Spirit, though I think most if not all would accept that God does sometimes choose to fill a believer instantaneously and wonderfully with the Spirit: He deals differently with each of his children. Speaking in tongues is not often spoken about, though some Baptist churches have 'gone charismatic' and there it is more openly practised. Mostly I have little if any idea whether my fellow believers speak in tongues or not, as it would probably be kept to private devotions; it is not practised openly in church except among those who have accepted Charismatic teaching on this. Likewise, the concept of being 'slain in the Spirit' is alien to us, but as it happened at least as far back as the 1730s, I doubt many would categorically say it is never of the Lord. Finally, you ask about listening to or for the voice of the Spirit. This has always been an important element of personal piety in our circles, but there have arisen some extremists who take 'sola scriptura' so far that they say God never speaks to his children except through the written Word. This is not, as far as I know, a widespread stance - and behold! I am told it came over in the second half of the 20th century from America

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell, and they saw that the unbelivers' are being tortured by the demons in hell, like Bill Wiese. These testimonies were accepted by many Charismatic and pentecostal Church. ( So, their understand of determined amount of wrath as a punishment is not "death" , but ' Be abandoned to the demons and tortured by the demons'. )

'Speak in tongue', listen the voice of Holy Spirit, Pray more specifically to Holy spirt, miracles,faith healing, prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism. Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy. I come from the Charismatic Church, so I know what is happening.Somebody from other denominations in Protestant also criticized me before several times

Hell and heaven visitation testimonies is that some people claim that Jesus led them to visit hell,...

prosperity gospel are not the trend of Baptism.

Most of Baptism Church also against them and even claim these as heresy.

I had never heard of such "visitation testimonies". I think most of us view view them with serious suspicion and caution.

The 'prosperity gospel' is definitely regarded as a twisted innovation to be rejected.

As regards the other matters, I think American (and Irish) Christians tend to be more hard-line concerning their own distinctives, but we English have also produced our own hard-liners.

23 minutes in hell is one of the best example, a famous book which is written by bill wiese and promoted by I-Hop. Many Pentecostal and Charismatic Church accept his testimonies. (So, their understand of determined amount of wrath as a punishment is not "death", but ' Be abandoned to the demons and tortured by the demons. )

I have never heard of it, nor of Mr Wiese, but as people love sensational literature I dfare say it is on the shelves of shops which sell such books.

Quote

23 Minutes in Hell is a 2006 Christian book written by Bill Wiese and published by Charisma House.[1] The book is claimed to be non-fiction and recounts the author's alleged 23-minute-long experience in Hell in 1998.[1] The book and the underlying story within it are the topic of a series of speaking tours given by Wiese, predominantly to churches and other Christian organizations

Many Churches in Protestant do invite this guy to share his testimony. NOT Church in the Protestant view them with serious suspicion and caution. As the faith of Protestant denomination are not the same, so some accept and even highly promote these testimonies while some against it.

Through the chatting with David Yong and me,We can see that even in Baptism(e.g same denomination), the teachings are not the same. We can see that some Baptist Church do accept part of the Charistmatic and Pentecostal activites, but some oppose all activities in Charistmatic and Pentecostal. In Protestant, not only different denominations teach different things and have different faith. There are even various teachings and faith within the same denominations.

Moreover,different famous scholars often innovates different theologies , new 'truth', and new teachings,etc which is unknown to all Protestant denomination and Protestant history . Some Protestant Christians accept their newly innovated theologies , while some highly opposite.

All these can show clearly that what Protestant Christians speak here can only represent a very minor part of Protestantism. What protestant Christians speak here cannot even represent their own denominations.

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.

I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.

I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.

I remember that one Famous scholar, who is called Joyce Meyer, forms a new Gospel and new 'penal substitution". She teaches that Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell, so the believers do not need to suffer the hell punishment. In her book, She even said that if men do not believe this fact,(e.g Jesus descended into hell and tortured by the fires in hell), they cannot be saved.

I'm no expert on Joyce Meyer but that sems hard to believe. Do you have a source? I thought she was an alter call type of salvation preacher? Basically an accept Jesus in your heart and be saved messege is what I get out of her anytime I've seen or heard her.